[FTC]: FVC (Vex) VS. FTC (Tetrix)

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by NalaTI

No question - Vex wins on cost. Price was never the issue.

Indeed, many people who do FTC don't do it because of it's superior cost analysis. Yet many people who approach this argument seem to only approach it from a cost perspective, or cost is always somewhere in the argument regardless of what the specific topic is. I like the original intent of this thread, and hopefully it will get back on track?

This list intentionally has cost left out of it, and is a composite of the posts thus far. I tried to only put things in the list that add to or subtract from a student's experience in either program. It also ignores the fact that teams may already have had substantial resources invested in one program or the other, since in the longer term everyone gets to that point regardless of the program. Swapping to the other is just a matter of making the decision and doing it, imo (of course...).

The "+N" means "N" people stated their opinions in this case, thus far. Don't agree? Post the opinion. Differing opinions should be stated as, for example "(+2)(-3)". Weighing facts with +/-N only serves as attempts to bias someone who's making a weighted decision.

FTC
Pros

• Extra material is allowed, including sheet plastics, aluminum, & cord (allows more creativity, +2)
• Better regional competition experience (+3)
• Stronger motors & gears
• Uses the NXT brick, which many of your mentored Jr. FLL & FLL teams are already familiar with for programming. LabView also transitions to FRC.
• More connections to college scholarships
• More & better (+2) sensors

Cons

• Connectivity issues at competition (resolved though, right? Didn't see any issues in Atlanta)
• LEGO parts aren't very compatible with the TETRIX parts (But if they ever are, look out! I know some 8 year olds with mad LEGO skillz!)
  
• Need multiple laptops/blue tooth to demo multiple bots
• Uses bluetooth (-1)

VRC
Pros

• Amazing World Championships, better than Atlanta (+3)
• More variety in the parts, including complex/intricate parts for more in-depth designs.
• Generally speaking, more matches per event
• Higher quantity of competitions per region
• College level division
• Steel parts for structure makes a stronger structure where needed
• Established community where many collaborate on pushing the limits of the VEX system even outside of VRC.
• Entire winning alliance qualifies for nationals
• Online challenges for those unable to attend competitions (link?)
• Skills challenges that are not based upon cooperation in competition

Cons

• Relatively weak motors

Topics that haven't been discussed:

• Number of mentors per student for each program

As Rich Kressly stated in his very well-worded post: you can't look at this from a sheer quantity of pros/cons perspective. Each must be weighed against your local situation and then the best decision can be made.

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by JesseK

FTC
Pros
[*]Better regional competition experience (+3)

You are really going to have to explain this one.

Even the most ardent FIRST loyalist wouldn't describe the experience of the last year's FTC/LEGO competition season as anything other than a complete train wreck. I don't believe any VRC event was canceled because the field didn't work, or lasted until late until the night for the same reason, or only had two or three qualifying matches.

I would have added:

VRC Pros

* Better regional competition experience +10
* The whole winning alliance qualifies for a Championship event +3
* More regional competitions, more chances to play
* The Skills Challenges for programming and driver skills give more competition opportunities than simply winning the tournament +3
* The online design challenges are far more extensive than FTC's animation challenge, and provide another route to world competition
* Teams that are remote or can't afford to travel may still participate in the online challenges
* Finalist Alliances in North America qualify to participate in the Championship of the Americas -- another super-regional in addition to Worlds
* Doesn't use Bluetooth

* Allows schools, clubs and sponsors to expose a lot more students to STEM for the same money +100

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

You are really going to have to explain this one.

+3 meant that 3 people in this thread said that. They're opinions, and not necessarily mine. Sorry I didn't put a little teeny disclaimer somewhere obvious, I thought people would actually read what I wrote.

[EricH]

Isn't FTC not available in certain areas, or am I still in 2008 on that? If it isn't available, that's a con, as VRC has more areas with competitions.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by EricH

Isn't FTC not available in certain areas, or am I still in 2008 on that? If it isn't available, that's a con, as VRC has more areas with competitions.

I'm pretty sure you're correct. In the very least, teams would have to travel long distances to compete in FTC competitions if they live in a remote location. For example, Alaskan VRC teams could do a youtube video of their Skills challenge submission, yet they probably wouldn't even bother flying to a state competition due to the large distances. I'm also pretty sure that in the more rural parts of the country there are few FTC competitions (though that's based on conjecture and I don't have time to look it up atm). I'd say it's more of a VRC pro than an FTC con.

[JaneYoung]

There are people around who are attempting to introduce and are introducing both competitions to areas. Both are developing and expanding. The programs, themselves, are creative in their recruitment and their impact.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by JesseK

I'm pretty sure you're correct. In the very least, teams would have to travel long distances to compete in FTC competitions if they live in a remote location. For example, Alaskan VRC teams could do a youtube video of their Skills challenge submission, yet they probably wouldn't even bother flying to a state competition due to the large distances. I'm also pretty sure that in the more rural parts of the country there are few FTC competitions (though that's based on conjecture and I don't have time to look it up atm). I'd say it's more of a VRC pro than an FTC con.

I was thinking more of MI, and the early years of FTC as FTC when there wasn't a single competition west of the Mississippi (which made L.A. residents unhappy...) Those aren't rural, yet didn't have a single competition. I think that part has changed, but still, it was not the best move, and many teams from those areas do VRC instead.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by EricH

I was thinking more of MI, and the early years of FTC as FTC when there wasn't a single competition west of the Mississippi (which made L.A. residents unhappy...) Those aren't rural, yet didn't have a single competition. I think that part has changed, but still, it was not the best move, and many teams from those areas do VRC instead.

As long as you stay around the business of robotics and technology, there will be change. It is at the core of their very nature. The trick is to appreciate that aspect of it, respect it, and remain flexible as the programs develop and grow. Who knows what will happen 2 years, 4 years, 10 years down the road. The goals and planning that are imperative to successful programs and their clientele, will help with that development and growth.

What we do know, and becomes readily apparent, is that some of the best and brightest of the FIRST program are involved in the success of VRC. Experience is a valuable asset.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by JesseK

This list intentionally has cost left out of it, and is a composite of the posts thus far. I tried to only put things in the list that add to or subtract from a student's experience in either program.

What student's robotics experience has money as no object, though? My FTC experience was very much limited by money; if my FTC budget of $800 would have just gotten me the KoP for Tetrix, and I couldn't machine anything as I was out of money, I would have a much worse experience. If money is irrelavent, you'd be able to afford FRC and the point would be moot really.

[NalaTI]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

What student's robotics experience has money as no object, though? My FTC experience was very much limited by money; if my FTC budget of $800 would have just gotten me the KoP for Tetrix, and I couldn't machine anything as I was out of money, I would have a much worse experience. If money is irrelavent, you'd be able to afford FRC and the point would be moot really.

The members of my team wanted to do FTC because of the limited team size, not because they didn't want to do the big robots. Sure, we didn't have the money to do FRC, but we also didn't look for it. Since the team was only going to have four members, they didn't want to compete with teams of unlimited size. And no, there's no FRC team within 50 miles of us that they could have joined, we'd've had to start our own. If the team can look for and find sponsors, then budget is not the overriding item.

BTW, based on the budgetary number in another thread, $800 would be substantially less than is needed for a VEX competition as well.

If you are limiting your ideas based on money, then you are limiting your ideas...

[Chris is me]

I did Vex for $800 by getting the Kit for $200, $100ish on used regulation batteries and programming, then planned the rest of the robot very carfefully and ordered no more parts than needed. The robot didn't exactly "work" but it could be done. The one event I planned to intend was within driving distance. Not only could I not build the same robot with the Tetrix kit (no tank treads), it would definitely not be possible with just the Kit of Parts and a hacksaw.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

What student's robotics experience has money as no object, though? My FTC experience was very much limited by money; if my FTC budget of $800 would have just gotten me the KoP for Tetrix, and I couldn't machine anything as I was out of money, I would have a much worse experience. If money is irrelavent, you'd be able to afford FRC and the point would be moot really.

I never said "money is no object". The intent of the thread was to find out why else people like one program or the other and the Pro/Con list is meant to return it to that intent rather than squabbling over opinions like little kids.

Money is never irrelevant. In the professional world (and STEM funding world), reasonable cost is usually not the limiting factor when deciding whether or not to fund a program. Since reasonable is a relative term, it really depends on the situation and how well one is able to communicate the justifications and benefits of the cost.

For example, somehow most communities are still able to justify to themselves that they should pay for multi-million dollar high school football stadiums that pay for themselves over a 50 year lifespan. To us this may seem ludicrous, but in reality it just means that those communities haven't seen the immediate benefits or return on investment of FIRST or VEX.

[Foster]

So there are Pro's and Con's for both sides. As with everything in life there are trade offs, you need to look at them and make a decision.

I run a 503(c) to bring robotics to as many students/roboteers as possible. So I come to the table looking for the biggest bang for the dollars that I have. If I can get the same approximate experience for lots less, I'm going to go for the lower cost.

My biggest complaint is that people take catch phrases like "crappy plastic VEX gears" "much stronger metal" and make that into the single reason to change. One of the early posters pointed back to the original "Why we are changing FTC" blog entries and there were concepts bandied about in those entries that the Tetrix materials were significantly better than Vex. We've seen proof that's not the case, but people continue to natter on like it continues to be factual.

Originally Posted by JesseK

Sorry I didn't put a little teeny disclaimer somewhere obvious, I thought people would actually read what I wrote.

You must be new around here

[JVN]

Originally Posted by Foster

My biggest complaint is that people take catch phrases like "crappy plastic VEX gears" "much stronger metal" and make that into the single reason to change. One of the early posters pointed back to the original "Why we are changing FTC" blog entries and there were concepts bandied about in those entries that the Tetrix materials were significantly better than Vex. We've seen proof that's not the case, but people continue to natter on like it continues to be factual.

JVN's major pet peeve in ALL aspects of his life:
If you repeat a lie enough times it starts to become the truth. Not enough people do their own factual comparisons but instead they just repeat generalizations not grounded in quantitative analysis.

-John

[bellpride]

Originally Posted by NalaTI

http://tinyurl.com/krt2o9

Are you inviting JVN to do pull-ups using VEX parts?

Originally Posted by JesseK

Topics that haven't been discussed:

• Number of mentors per student for each program

Zero for our six VRC teams. Many also have zero, some have one or two, very few have a whole bunch.

Originally Posted by JVN

If you repeat a lie enough times it starts to become the truth. Not enough people do their own factual comparisons but instead they just repeat generalizations not grounded in quantitative analysis.

What was most disappointing about the transition was the truly ungracious way in which FIRST pursued it. Tetrix was introduced not only with subtle "lies" like the ones mentioned before, but even through making fun of the VEX Robotics kit (in one blog post, it was even called a toy). I can't imagine how much this offends long-time FIRST-supporting IFI employees, like JVN, Jason Morella, Karthik, and countless others, along with teams which thought their hard work was viewed as real engineering.

The past is the past though. Looking at the replies, I think the current FTC has a long way to go until it catches up with VRC.